Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am not arguing either in favor or against St Annes having access to the Perimeter. Merely pointing out what happens with that single intersection is setting a precedence that is going to be applied to a lot of other intersections on the Perimeter regardless of your personal feelings on if they do or do not warrant it.

Giving Lag, St Annes and St Marys all grade separated access sets the expectations for access every 2 KM which matches the "interstate standard". But that also means grade separations for HWY 15 and Gunn Rd, and both Pipeline and Rizal. It also will apply to give Sage Creek access to the Perimeter 2 KM east of Lag and building a grade separated access point between HWY 2/3 and Waverly.

Closing St Annes on the other hand establishes a 4 KM rule and has huge cost savings long term.

It is a tough choice to make that will have long term implications on tax payers that ultimately are going to foot the bill.

Give it a rest....
The south is built up to the perimeter highway. The north is not efen close.
Second the land south of st annes ans dakota is the future st vital. Its city land. The land you keep talking about it NOT in the city limits. Its just tax evading folks. There should be no permits issued by the provincr in these areas for developments.
St annes also has a unique issue. Its proximity to the Seine River, then the Main Line tracks. BOTH need to be replaced for the future 6 lane highway. It would be stupid as fck to not do st annes properly when all the land south of it will be densely populated sooner then later.
Besides the fact the land has been set aside for 30 years now.

Pipeline should never habe happened, same as Gunn. Gunn can be rerouted. Pipeline since its already a cluster mess can get a flyover.

But deal with it already Cory, the south side has extreme rush hour traffic. Its the side of the city growing the fastests, its also The main bypass route and 59 from the south dumps on it, which is alot of traffic. 75 dumps on it which is just as heavy traffic as number 1 highway.
In the north you have an over built 59 multi million overpass already. To serve basically beach traffic.
Number 6 is not as busy as people think. But it deserves a interchange.

I can go back years for your hatred for the south, every post about the perimeter its bash the south, pipeline and gun need interchanges and we the people of oakbank want out super highway.........

Everyone that thinks st annes is a joke. I dare you all at peak rush hour to take route 90 to perimeter, then go east to 59, let me know how many times you are backed up for kms while tradfic is flying up behind you at 110 or more. Also note the long back up of cars all turning onto st marys and st annes.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Give it a rest....
The south is built up to the perimeter highway. The north is not efen close.

If you were even remotely informed about what is happening south of Portage Ave it would be worth listening to what you might have to say.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

The land you keep talking about it NOT in the city limits. Its just tax evading folks. There should be no permits issued by the provincr in these areas for developments.

Doesn't matter which local government the land is listed under. It is going to get developed if there is demand. You don't want to see it developed you clearly know how to you should be writing to and it isn't this forum. Just because it is "not in city limits" hasn't stopped countless other rural residential developments from happening just outside the Perimeter, or even inside the Perimeter like the new one in East St Paul.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Pipeline should never habe happened, same as Gunn. Gunn can be rerouted. Pipeline since its already a cluster mess can get a flyover.

Both Pipeline and Gunn Rd are 2 km or more from the nearest alternative access point. As I said, I don't care on St Anne's either way but it sets the standard for ALL the Perimeter and where grade separated access points will happen. You want to hate Pipeline and Gunn Rd? Call your MLA today and tell them to no waste money on St Annes Rd and close its access to the Perimeter ASAP.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

But deal with it already [b] the north side has extreme rush hour traffic. Its the side of the city growing the fastests, its also The main bypass route and 59 from to HWY 1 for commercial truck traffic, which is alot of traffic. and is just as heavy traffic as number 1 highway.

Made a couple edits to help you out with your ignorance and misinformation.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

In the north you have an over built 59 multi million overpass already. To serve basically beach traffic.
Number 6 is not as busy as people think. But it deserves a interchange.

Yet more of your ignorance showing through in all its glory.

The north Perimeter between Henderson and Route 90/HWY 6 is consistently over 24,000 with the second busiest segment of the entire Perimeter being Main to McPhillips at 26,460. The busiest segment is Portage to Roblin at 27,900. Traffic count at St Annes? It is actually lower than the traffic count at Pipeline.

Want to make yourself more informed before posting again go to the source:

U of Manitoba Transport Information Group - Published August 2018

Originally Posted by Bluenote

I can go back years for your hatred for the south, every post about the perimeter its bash the south, pipeline and gun need interchanges and we the people of oakbank want out super highway.........

No hatred of the south. Just posting actual FACTS about the traffic volume on the Perimeter and real collisions resulting in DEATHS not minor fender benders like St Marys. Also if you actually read my posts as you claim you have you will know I will likely never drive the new HYW 15 to Oak Bank but it is a proposal from your own highways department about 25 years back. It is the only two lane Provincal highway in the Winnipeg capital region with traffic counts over 10,000. All the others are twinned (four lanes) for segments with that traffic count. Your argument isn't with me it is with FACTS and STATISTICS

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Everyone that thinks st annes is a joke. I dare you all at peak rush hour to take route 90 to perimeter, then go east to 59, let me know how many times you are backed up for kms while tradfic is flying up behind you at 110 or more. Also note the long back up of cars all turning onto st marys and st annes.

Been on ALL segments of the Perimeter many times of day and my experience mostly reflects what the traffic counts show with one exception -- 59 to HWY 15. The challenge there is the limited access points and people far exceeding the speed limit (ie 120+ range) and an at-grade intersection without even a traffic signal. At minimum it needs a stop light there. Don't want more stop lights on the Perimeter? I support that too, build the full interchange that location needs. Yes, Gunn Rd doesn't need a full interchange but the CPT build out is going to connect there same as the Headingley and St Norbert by-pass routes are being planned for future roads. It is matches how 101/59 sat for a generation waiting on the future roads.

[bomberjet]

59N for beach traffic. Except for the 100k people living there and numerous heavy industries, etc, etc.

[Curmudgeon]

There is more distance between St. Anne's and 59 then there is between Main and Henderson, so the suggestion that St. Anne's shouldn't or can't have access from 100 due to its proximity to 59 makes little sense. On I-29 there is exactly one mile (1.6 km) between the Gateway (US 2) and DeMers interchanges. There is no hard and fast rule that interchanges have to be every 2 km, they can be more or less as traffic patterns and needs dictate.

Getting really tired of the silly north vs. south dichotomy. The entire Perimeter needs to be brought up to full interstate standards, not just certain sections, and portions of it are almost there. Amazing that the province built almost its entire highway network in the 1945-1970 period and yet now can't even build a few interchanges. Hard to believe how they possibly managed to build the original Perimeter or the Portage by-pass.

Interchanges (going counter-clockwise):

1 Brandon/Portage Ave
241 Headingley/Roblin Blvd.
427/Wilkes Ave.
2/3 Elm Creek/Carman/McGillivray Blvd.
330 La Salle (Brady access)
75 Emerson/Kenaston Blvd.
to 75/Pembina Hwy.
200 St. Adolphe/St. Mary's Rd.
St. Anne's Rd.
59 St. Pierre/Lagimodiere Blvd.
1 Kenora/Fermor Ave.
15 Anola/Dugald Rd.
117 Oakbank/Chief Peguis Trail
59 Grand Beach/Lagimodiere Blvd.
204 Lockport/Henderson Hwy.
9 Selkirk/Main St.
8 Gimli/McPhillips St.
409/Pipeline Rd.
7 Stonewall/Brookside Blvd.
6 Ashern
221 Rosser/to Sturgeon Rd.
190 to 1 Brandon/CentrePort Canada Way

Total 22, 13 constructed (some may need improvement) and 9 new.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

There is more distance between St. Anne's and 59 then there is between Main and Henderson, so the suggestion that St. Anne's shouldn't or can't have access from 100 due to its proximity to 59 makes little sense. On I-29 there is exactly one mile (1.6 km) between the Gateway (US 2) and DeMers interchanges. There is no hard and fast rule that interchanges have to be every 2 km, they can be more or less as traffic patterns and needs dictate.

Getting really tired of the silly north vs. south dichotomy. The entire Perimeter needs to be brought up to full interstate standards, not just certain sections, and portions of it are almost there. Amazing that the province built almost its entire highway network in the 1945-1970 period and yet now can't even build a few interchanges. Hard to believe how they possibly managed to build the original Perimeter or the Portage by-pass.

Interchanges (going counter-clockwise):

1 Brandon/Portage Ave
241 Headingley/Roblin Blvd.
427/Wilkes Ave.
2/3 Elm Creek/Carman/McGillivray Blvd.
330 La Salle (Brady access)
75 Emerson/Kenaston Blvd.
to 75/Pembina Hwy.
200 St. Adolphe/St. Mary's Rd.
St. Anne's Rd.
59 St. Pierre/Lagimodiere Blvd.
1 Kenora/Fermor Ave.
15 Anola/Dugald Rd.
117 Oakbank/Chief Peguis Trail
59 Grand Beach/Lagimodiere Blvd.
204 Lockport/Henderson Hwy.
9 Selkirk/Main St.
8 Gimli/McPhillips St.
409/Pipeline Rd.
7 Stonewall/Brookside Blvd.
6 Ashern
221 Rosser/to Sturgeon Rd.
190 to 1 Brandon/CentrePort Canada Way

Total 22, 13 constructed (some may need improvement) and 9 new.

When you put it that way it doesn't seem so unmanageable. My only criticism is that I would add Hwy 1 @ 207 and the whole Headingly mess as being pretty important considerations for the bypass functioning correctly. What use is it having a freeflowing perimeter, north or south if you just have to stop on both sides anyways?

I find it very difficult to believe that we couldn't have found even enough money for one diamond interchange per year for the last 20 years, especially considering the amount of money that was being spent on other fluff projects. With the PCs in right now, it's doubtful that things move forward in any meaningful way for the next little while but holy shit this has to get done like yesterday, not in 50 years when they'll already be obsolete.

[bomberjet]

I had a map drawn up somewhere on SSP showing all the locations. I think the province released an official one at some point too.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Total 22, 13 constructed (some may need improvement) and 9 new.

That is a pretty good list.

The challenge is before those 9 get crossed off we likely need to one east of Lag for Sage Creek.

There will likely be need for a new one between Wilkes and HWY 2/3 in the next ten years.

I also would guess that something between Lag and Gunn Rd on the northeast segment will be a hot priority as the end of that list gets approached.

--

In terms of rehabs we know are in early stages of planning:

Portage Ave conversion to the diamond.
Rebuild of the Assinboine bridge to accommodate six lanes.
Full rebuild of Wilkes
Pembina to a diamond (see Portage Ave) - both to be replaced by new full interchanges while maintaining local access.
South Red River Bridge rebuild to six lanes.
South overhaul of Lag to allow six lanes under. See the Roblin rehab.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

When you put it that way it doesn't seem so unmanageable. My only criticism is that I would add Hwy 1 @ 207 and the whole Headingly mess as being pretty important considerations for the bypass functioning correctly. What use is it having a freeflowing perimeter, north or south if you just have to stop on both sides anyways?

I find it very difficult to believe that we couldn't have found even enough money for one diamond interchange per year for the last 20 years, especially considering the amount of money that was being spent on other fluff projects. With the PCs in right now, it's doubtful that things move forward in any meaningful way for the next little while but holy shit this has to get done like yesterday, not in 50 years when they'll already be obsolete.

Yes, my suggestion made consideration for that too (read 190 to 1 Brandon which would serve as a Headingley By-Pass) and yes, 1 at 207 should have a diamond interchange. The plan should be eventually to have 1, 75 and 100/101 as fully limited access highways. In the case of No. 1, which is after all the Trans-Canada, it would be (and should be) primarily expected to be fully funded under a massive and comprehensive federal infrastructure program.

[bomberjet]

Here is what I have. May need slight adjustment based on the more recent announcements. However I think it's pretty accurate for 100. The interchanges I show for 101 should be pretty close, based on what they're doing with 100.For clarity, this is from the south perimeter study and I added in the interchanges for the north perimeter.

My only questions marks are for 23, 26, and 32. But, again, seem logical but would be lower on the priority list.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Yes, my suggestion made consideration for that too (read 190 to 1 Brandon which would serve as a Headingley By-Pass) and yes, 1 at 207 should have a diamond interchange. The plan should be eventually to have 1, 75 and 100/101 as fully limited access highways. In the case of No. 1, which is after all the Trans-Canada, it would be (and should be) primarily expected to be fully funded under a massive and comprehensive federal infrastructure program.

Yeah well supposedly there was a massive infrastructure program by the feds recently (not sure what happened with all the money, probably got mopped up by Ontario and Quebec as usual).

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by CoryB

That is a pretty good list.

The challenge is before those 9 get crossed off we likely need to one east of Lag for Sage Creek.

There will likely be need for a new one between Wilkes and HWY 2/3 in the next ten years.

I also would guess that something between Lag and Gunn Rd on the northeast segment will be a hot priority as the end of that list gets approached.....

Sage Creek can access the Perimeter via 59 south to 100, 59 north and then via Fermor to 100/101 or via Plessis Road to Fermor and then to the 101/101. No need for an additional interchange between 59 and 1 along the 100, it's a distance of just over 3 km. The ideal of a limited access highway is limited access to facilitate free-flowing traffic. If the expectation is that everyone should get access as the crow flies, then it defeats the entire purpose.

Maybe one day there will be a need for an additional interchange between Wilkes and 2/3 but certainly not today and I don't foresee that in the next ten years either as McGillivray runs SW-NE so for example if there was a lot of development near McCreary Road it would still be relatively close to both Wilkes and McGillivray in order to access 100.

That map has too many interchanges. I can't see that many being necessary until the urbanized area entirely fills all of the land within the Perimeter. Given the volume of undeveloped land within the Perimeter today, we would have to be a city of at least 2.5 million for that to occur.

[bomberjet]

That is the ultimate layout and interchanges are at current roadway location. You need to plan or end up in a mess like the City of Winnipeg transportation network. Should those locations be ignored?

Like I mentioned some of those interchanges are long term. They're all 2 miles spacing for the most part. Which yes is not a hard rule. Everything on 100 is part of the current plan.

[BuildUpWpg]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

There is more distance between St. Anne's and 59 then there is between Main and Henderson, so the suggestion that St. Anne's shouldn't or can't have access from 100 due to its proximity to 59 makes little sense. On I-29 there is exactly one mile (1.6 km) between the Gateway (US 2) and DeMers interchanges. There is no hard and fast rule that interchanges have to be every 2 km, they can be more or less as traffic patterns and needs dictate.

Getting really tired of the silly north vs. south dichotomy. The entire Perimeter needs to be brought up to full interstate standards, not just certain sections, and portions of it are almost there. Amazing that the province built almost its entire highway network in the 1945-1970 period and yet now can't even build a few interchanges. Hard to believe how they possibly managed to build the original Perimeter or the Portage by-pass.

Interchanges (going counter-clockwise):

1 Brandon/Portage Ave
241 Headingley/Roblin Blvd.
427/Wilkes Ave.
2/3 Elm Creek/Carman/McGillivray Blvd.
330 La Salle (Brady access)
75 Emerson/Kenaston Blvd.
to 75/Pembina Hwy.
200 St. Adolphe/St. Mary's Rd.
St. Anne's Rd.
59 St. Pierre/Lagimodiere Blvd.
1 Kenora/Fermor Ave.
15 Anola/Dugald Rd.
117 Oakbank/Chief Peguis Trail
59 Grand Beach/Lagimodiere Blvd.
204 Lockport/Henderson Hwy.
9 Selkirk/Main St.
8 Gimli/McPhillips St.
409/Pipeline Rd.
7 Stonewall/Brookside Blvd.
6 Ashern
221 Rosser/to Sturgeon Rd.
190 to 1 Brandon/CentrePort Canada Way

Total 22, 13 constructed (some may need improvement) and 9 new.

The province built the perimeter back when labour and materials cost were relatively cheap. I wonder what the original perimeter cost was in today's dollars.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by BuildUpWpg

The province built the perimeter back when labour and materials cost were relatively cheap. I wonder what the original perimeter cost was in today's dollars.

The Perimeter was poorly designed in so many ways, almost all the cloverleafs were poorly done, curbs on stretches of the roadway along the left lanes, needlessly built for city expansion in the NW and SW which never came about, lack of interchanges where they should have been, too many access points.....

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

The Perimeter was poorly designed in so many ways, almost all the cloverleafs were poorly done, curbs on stretches of the roadway along the left lanes, needlessly built for city expansion in the NW and SW which never came about, lack of interchanges where they should have been, too many access points.....

They had to follow the lot lines - future expansion of the city wasn't the reason for the odd shape that the Perimeter Highway has. Most of the eastern half runs along the edge of the French-style river lots while the western half follows the rectilinear English township/range lines.

[WildCake]

For anyone wondering why the Perimeter was initially built to low standards - go to page 10 of this document:

https://winnipegmetroregion.ca/asset...rt_LandUse.pdf

Dark Grey area of that map is Winnipeg pre-1950, which would basically be the extent of the city when Perimeter was started in 1955. The highway was at least 2 km out from any built-up area of the city at the time. This is also before the car culture boom (and start of city sprawl) of the 60s and 70s so it’s no surprise it was built to rural highway standards and not suburban freeways.

This doesn’t excuse the poor state of things now, but some perspective as to why things were done that way.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Sage Creek can access the Perimeter via 59 south to 100, 59 north and then via Fermor to 100/101 or via Plessis Road to Fermor and then to the 101/101. No need for an additional interchange between 59 and 1 along the 100, it's a distance of just over 3 km. The ideal of a limited access highway is limited access to facilitate free-flowing traffic. If the expectation is that everyone should get access as the crow flies, then it defeats the entire purpose.

You cannot walk on both sides of the street - either St Annes gets grade separated and establishes the 2 KM between access point rule which would apply to Sage Creek and many others or we go with a 4 KM rule and close off access to St Annes.

The challenge is it is a select one rule position that we, as tax payers, are in right now that has long term implications. You either want more limited access or more frequent access, period. It isn't about letting the one "as the crow flies" road you will personally use have access.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by CoryB

You cannot walk on both sides of the street - either St Annes gets grade separated and establishes the 2 KM between access point rule which would apply to Sage Creek and many others or we go with a 4 KM rule and close off access to St Annes.

The challenge is it is a select one rule position that we, as tax payers, are in right now that has long term implications. You either want more limited access or more frequent access, period. It isn't about letting the one "as the crow flies" road you will personally use have access.

This isn't a zero sum game as you're trying to frame the issue. This isn't some stare decisis game where the precedent of putting some interchanges closer to each other automatically sets the precedent for the others. There is no hard rule. What you're talking about is literally just pandering politics where you have to do something a certain way only because it was done that way elsewhere. That's not how the world works. If it were the case we would currently have a highway not unlike the 401 running through the province.

[bomberjet]

It depends on what intended use of the roadway is. The perimeter is a bypass of the City. It's sole purpose is not for Jimmy in St. Vital to get to U of M. Yes local traffic will use it. But should not be the governing factor. I have no issues with the current plan proposed by the Province. We should not be pandering to people from Sage Creek to get direct access to 101 via a new interchange location. Use Lag.

If you're looking for something with frequent access, you're want arterial roadways. No or very small amounts of grade separation, with more frequent access for locals.

If you're wanting a high speed long distance highway, go with a parkway like in Ohio for example. 10-15 interchanges over the entire length of the state. Extremely limited access.

[CoryB]

^^ The challenge is with the huge infrastructure deficit across the whole city the Perimeter has become the principle arterial road for the whole city and it needs to be treated as such. It has long stopped being "just a by pass".